Talk:G36E
I have a feeling this should be named G36 since the E-type and K-type featured in BF2 are nearly identical, with the K just featuring a longer barrel and a vertical grip attached to the underside in front. The G36C can keep its article since its considered a carbine, as can the MG36 since its an LMG. Anyone else agree? [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 22:02, August 12, 2010 (UTC) I agree. FPS_Headhunter LASER GUNS BEW BEW!!!! :D 22:03, August 12, 2010 (UTC) I think the G36K is more similar to the G36C (both for reals and in BF2) than it is to the E. Both the K and the C are carbines, and BF2 spec-ops weapons. (The K has a ''shorter barrel than the E; "K" is for "kurtz", German for "short".) If any two of these weapons are going to share a page, it should be the K and the C, not the K and the E; however, the K and the C both appear in the same game and have different stats, so any page sharing at all might be confusing and inappropriate. Son of a Magnet 22:18, August 12, 2010 (UTC) :You make a good point though, Magnet. I guess I'd change my proposal to combining th K and C. Yeah they're in the same game and have different stats, but does that really matter? We can just have separate sections like with what we've done with the other guns. This case is only different because its in the same game. [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 23:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Now that I've thought more about it, I think this is kind of a slippery slope. Pardon me while I step back and formulate some thoughts on a more general issue. Policy and precedent have created a conflicting situation here that's difficult. The policy in question is that weapon articles (and, in general, pages on everything, but it's weapon pages that are causing the problem here) bear the titles of the weapons as they are used in the game. The precedent at odds with this is the habit of grouping weapon articles together on the same page, based on the real-life weapon after which the weapons are patterned. This presents a problem on pages like the AKS-74u and the Saiga 20K. Even though patterned after the same weapon in real life, the AK-74 as seen in ''BF2 fills a different role in the game and performs differently than the AKS-74u in BFBC2; they're different in-game animals. The S12K and S20K are as different from each other as much as the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are; the former share a page, and the latter don't. (I've never played the first Bad Company, but, as I understand from reading this wiki, they weapons appearing therein are way unlike their counterparts appearing in the other titles in the series.) You have a Battlefield wiki, ostensibly about Battlefield in-game items and concepts, but in this case organized around real-life objects in a way that isn't always in line with the way Battlefield organizes things. We're running into that same thing here. The G36 C and K variants are different (although not very) weapons in real life, and they're different weapons in the game; to fit with policy and avoid confusion, they should have different pages. ::Am I making sense? ::I'' think the best (most useful, best organized, least confusing) solution would be to change the policy slightly, but I am a) new here, and b) in the minority. Son of a Magnet 16:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC) :::I ''think I get what you're saying. Pretty much, since they are different weapons based off of the same IRL gun, but featured in the same game, they should be on different pages. You're certainly a by-the-book type of person (no offense, I mean this in a good way), but we need people like that here to keep everything on par and sort out stuff like this in an intelligent way. I'll make a new page for the K variant then, as it makes sense that way as you described in the example with the SCAR-H and -L. Thanks for correcting me, Magnet. Much appreciated. [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 20:51, August 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, I'm not very good at ''Battlefield, but I'm awesome at sweating the details. I've read a few comments from you guys about how you'd like this wiki to seem more "professional". I really think the Article Policy and MoS could use an overhaul and rewrite to make them clearer and better at promoting and delineating a more consistent article format, style, and design; this would be a great first step. Son of a Magnet 16:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::If you come up with a better way for the MoS and Article Policy to be written, just make a blog post with your changes and see what everyone thinks of it. It can be unclear sometimes, and a rewrite/cleanup of it might be useful [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 03:36, August 15, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I most certainly agree with Magnet there. Though, in general, I have no idea why we grouped these articles. I remember, at first, ''I liked having the articles grouped up like that, for example, M16, and Talk:M16, but I've changed in opinions. What do you propse we do about pages like M16? SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 03:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC) What I think is that The Page can be called G36 Assualt Rifle Family '''or '''G36 Rifle Family or G36 Variants? This way you can have one page. Each Page can have its whole section. G36C, G36E, G36K, and MG36. In each section can include the page information along with their respecive Gun Box . A similar thing can be done with the XM8P and Variants.Bryan91997 21:24, August 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well, no. That further encourages the organization through IRL things. What I meant was the M16 page. There are 2 games with the M16 (or named that, anyways) and two with it named M16A2 (even though one's an -A4). Do we keep them under M16, or seperate M16 and M16A2? As well, for the AkS-74u, we pretty much put everything that has "AK-74" in that article, when the gun in BF2 and BF2:MC is an AK-74u, and the one in BFH is an AK-74. Do we seperate them to? SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 22:22, August 15, 2010 (UTC) ::The M16 page is fine as-is. It makes sense that it has M16 as the title and then in each game it has its own name. Thats how we've been doing it for the other guns as well (ex: QBU-88, QJY-88 just to name 2 off of the top of my head). I believe what we've been doing is if a gun is featured in multiple games, we use a general name or the most commonly used name (PGB gave me an example of this). For the M16, I wouldn't want to search M16A2, but rather M16 and get there (I know there's re-directories, but sometimes they don't work for lowercase and such...). As for the AKS-74u, it should be called AK-74u and have the AKS-74u-variant named in the games that it is. [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 01:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Okay, I return after some more thought. The goal of this Wiki (I ''assume, and by saying "assume" I am not being sarcastic, I'm just emphasizing that my argument hinges upon this particular fact) is to provide information about the Battlefield series of games to people who are interested in learning about and playing them. Many (one might say the vast majority) of the things that appear in the various Battlefield worlds are, in fact, based on real-world implements of war. This is a large part of Battlefield's appeal (see footnote 1); it's supposed to be immersive and realistic while still being fun (see footnote 2). I think the best way to do this is to admit that, while, yes, this is a Battlefield wiki, the best way to organize much of this information is around real-world devices. The M16 article is, in fact, perfect. Sure, the M16 w/scope from BF Vietnam and the M16 as wielded by the Marine Assault guy from BF2 are both different chunks of code in different games and fill very different niches and tactical roles in their respective games, however they are both, in some way, shadows of the form of the real-life M16 as fielded by the various branches of the US Armed Forces. Similarly, every wacky variation on that Ak-74u page is, in spirit, somehow the actual Soviet/Russian carbine, implemented in a specific virtual world in a specific way for Fun and Game Balance. :::So, I suggest this: Make it officially okay to organize pages around real-life objects. Go ahead and name the M416 article "HK416", 'cause that's what, in spirit, it is. Stick a little real-life information in the introductory paragraph, and then stick all the information from the various games in which it appears under the appropriate headings. And, because this is a wiki about Battlefield, be thorough about making redirects from all the in-game monikers of the HK416 (like, for instance, "M416") to the appropriate page. Also, go ahead and mention how a particular incarnation of a weapon deviates from it's real-life version. This would be a) interesting and informative, and b) possibly helpful and less confusing to someone who is familiar with the object in real life (and certainly no more confusing to someone who isn't). :::I think this is the clearest, most logical, and most informative way to organize articles about in-game incarnations of real-life things (which, honestly, is most of the articles here). :::----- :::1. I realize that Battlefield 2142 is almost entirely fictional. It also represents a very small fraction of the Battlefield franchise. :::2. The key part of this sentence is "supposed to be". I know that different people have different preferences along the fun/realistic scale, hence the existence of the excruciating Project Reality mod for BF2. (Which I liked, by the way, but still think is kind of excruciating.) ::: Son of a Magnet 01:21, August 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Interesting point you make there... It opposes many things we've already established, though, especially concerning the whole real life. I want to see what others think. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 01:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::I know, which is why I had to think about it for a long time. I honestly think it'll make the wiki better and clearer if the "no real life stuff!" attitude gets relaxed. A large part of the games' focus is the real-life stuff. A machine gun in the game is supposed to represent a machine gun in reality; the game designers rely on our understanding of what a machine gun does in real life in order to make the game fun and playable for us (instead of puzzling and requiring a 300 page manual). Imagine me as a Jeff Daniels character saying, "Go with it, man." Son of a Magnet 02:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I kind of like what we have in place, though. If we allow IRL stuff, then the trivia sections will be flooded with shit nobody cares about like "the M416 isn't really the HK416 because it has a shorter barrel" or "the 870 MCS really has a 6-round magazine instead of a 4-round magazine" and stuff like that. It would just make us nit-pick the developers on every little detail about everything. I do like the idea about the opening paragraph including how the weapons and stuff differ in each Battlefield, in addition to being the only place for IRL stuff like it should be (we also should probably be discussing this in the forum instead of here). [[User:PresidentEden78|''President Eden]] [[User talk:PresidentEden78|Enclave Radio]] [[Usergroup:Battlefield Wiki Clan|"Join the Enclave today!"]] 03:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, that's the whole reason we have restrictions on IRL info. I ''could be convinced to implement what you're saying, Magnet, but I'm truly a bit sketchy on the whole subject... SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 03:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)